TV Interactive Data Corp. v. Sony Corp.
929 F. Supp. 2d 1006
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- TVI and Sony filed Daubert-related motions in limine regarding expert testimony on noninfringing alternatives and damages
- TVI seeks exclusion of Sony expert Byrd’s ‘press any button’ alternative and limits on Byrd’s ‘operating system reload’ alternative
- TVI seeks exclusion of Sony damages expert Hoffman’s reliance on Byrd’s alternatives, Sony licenses, patent pools, and Microsoft lump-sum rate analyses
- Sony seeks exclusion of TVI and related experts’ conjoint analysis (Professor Srinivasan) and limits on TVI’s damages model and time-horizon considerations
- The court grants TVI’s Partial Daubert Motion in part and denies Sony’s Daubert Motion in full, applying Daubert/Rule 702 standards to the challenged methodologies
- Key issues concern availability of alleged alternatives, comparability of licenses, the admissibility of conjoint analysis, and the time frame for reasonable royalty computations
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Byrd’s ‘press any button’ alternative is admissible | Byrd’s alternative is noninfringing and relevant to damages | The option infringes or is disclaimed under claim construction | Excluded; court barred due to infringement/disclaimer concerns |
| Whether Byrd’s second alternative (OS reload) was actually available during the hypothetical period | Sony had enough information to implement redesigns during the period | Availability must be proven; factual question for trial | Remains for jury; court finds no exclusion at this stage |
| Whether Hoffman may rely on noninfringing alternatives and on Sony licenses/patent pools in the Georgia-Pacific analysis | Some alternatives/licenses are admissible to support damages | Noncomparable licenses/pools should be excluded or neutrally treated | Hoffman may rely on some but not on the Sony licenses or patent pools for rate support; others excluded |
| Whether Srinivasan’s conjoint analysis is admissible and reliable under Daubert | Conjoint analysis is a valid method with phase-based design and defensible statistics | Methodological flaws exist; reliability is questionable | Denied; surveys admissible and probative, with weight to be given by the jury |
| Whether Wagner’s damages opinions withstand Daubert challenges (price elasticity, retail vs wholesale, 2011/2012 MWTP baselines) | Wagner’s Georgia-Pacific analysis appropriately ties to the patented invention | Challenges to elasticity, price basis, and time-frame should exclude or limit | Wagner’s analyses mainly admissible; weight issues addressed by the court rather than exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 185 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (availability/relief of alternatives relevant to damages)
- Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2010) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to methodology and principles)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (S. Ct. 1993) (gatekeeping for reliability/relevance of expert testimony)
- Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (gatekeeping on methodology; focus on principles, not conclusions)
- ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (comparability issues in licensing evidence; cross-examination preferred)
- LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (timing of damages evidence must relate to infringement period)